Do Judges Make Law?

There are two main sources of English Law- legislation and cases. When interpreting legislation judges must ascertain the intention of Parliament and, except insofar as they apply the mischief rule of interpretation, they do not make law. Traditionally and due to the doctrine of the separation of powers judicial role is really not properly legislative at all, but consist merely in stating what the existing law actually is, and interpreting authoritatively doubtful points as they arise. This traditional approach of common law, which insisted that the judges had no power whatever to make law but simply ‘declared’ it as it had always been. Judges were regarded as specially qualified exponents and interpreters rather than the creators of the law.

The assumption was that the common law was a complete system of legal rules and principles sufficient to meet any fresh combination of facts that might be presented to the court, and that judges did not make new law.

By the (18th century), it was manifestly understood that the idea of judges doing no more than declare the law was a hollow pretence, and this idea was roundly stigmatised by both Benthem and Austin as a childish fiction.

To suggest that Judges make law is to endow them with an unrestricted power of laying down abstract principles, but they have no such unlimited power. Such legislative power as a judge may possess is necessarily limited to the facts of the case before him, and as a corollary, his decision will be law only in so far as it may be necessary for his actual decision. The ration decidendi is the essence and the rule and all else is obiter dicta and will not bind Judges in future cases. A Judge has no freedom of choice, since statutes or precedents must limit his action and although a Judge may have Power to regard either he has no right to do so and in so far as he does, he violates the law.

Judges help to develop law but cannot be said to legislate since the common...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...﻿Introduction
In 1892, Lord Esher in Willis V Baddeley has said that “There is… no such thing as judge-made law, for the judgesdo not make the law, though they frequently have to apply existing law to circumstances as to which it has not previously been authoritatively laid down that such law is applicable.”
Generally, the position judges adopted is to interpret the law instead of concerning with the justice of their decisions. In modern tie, there is still existence of powerful ideology that denies any creative role to judges. The popular view of the judges is not to give the judge a law-making role, they are supposed to do justice but not make it up.
Here, we are concern with the issue dojudgesmakelaw? Let’s assume that if they do, to what extend do they makelaw? Statutory interpretation plays two substantial elements that direct the decision of the judges in court. To the extent of understanding the rationale of the decision-making by judges, we have to profoundly discuss these two elements which will unfold the arguments whether judgesmakelaw.
Statutory...

...Parliamentary sovereignty is the key stone in the British Constitution. If judges were to makelaw then they would be contradicting this doctrine. The legislative supremacy disqualifies the courts power to review the validity of legislation, refer to British Railway Board v Pickin . The objective of judges is to not makelaw but simply declare what the law had always been. Acts of Parliament are the highest form of authority and the courts hands are tied by it. But through the doctrine of precedent, the judicial function of declaring and applying the law has a ‘quasi-legislative effect’.
The rules of precedent themselves are judge made, except where a statute has intervened. Occasionally, judges have to decide on a case where there is no previous legal decision or law for the judge to use. This leads to judges technically making law through original precedent. The doctrine of Precedent is the process whereby judges of a lower court are bound to follow a decision on a point already made by a judge in a higher court. It is based on the maxim “stare decisis” which means stand by what has been decided. To satisfy the conditions in the doctrine, the previous point must have been the “Ratio decidendi” (reasons for deciding). The previous court must have...

...parliament, and that only the parliament can makelaws in the legislation. But, there is something that confuses the sovereignty of the parliament, which is the “judge-made law”. Is there such thing as a judge-made law?
What is a judge-made law? A judge-made law is when a judge applies or extends an established rule to new facts, or decides that the particular rule do not take effect on certain situations, thus, making a change in the law. However, when it comes to this, it does not mean that the judges have the power to change the law, nor make new laws. All these laws “made” by the judges are inferior to the parliament and delegated legislation thus can be overruled.
Until the judge-made law is overruled, it is considered as a precedent and stands as a decision on non-statutory points of law, and is subjected to the same rule of stare decisis. The reason why we have judicial precedent is that most of the English laws are derived from the statutes and common law. It then falls into the hands of the judges to interpret them and evolve the law to make a better law.
Judicial...

...Introduction
A law is an obligatory rule of conduct imposed and enforced by the sovereign[1]. Therefore the law is the body of principles recognized and enforced by the state in the application of justice. The law is mainly made by a parliament, a legislative body given power by the constitution to draft law. However in the last few decades there has been a notion that judgesmake law.A judge is a public official appointed or elected to hear and decide legal matters in court[2], Judges exercise judicial power. This involves making binding decisions affecting the rights and duties of citizens and institutions. In carrying out this task, a judge can use any of the following three sources of Ugandan law, Acts of Parliament or legislation, the common law, or previous decisions by the courts and a constitution
Dojudgesmakelaw?
To ask the question “dojudgesmakelaw?” Implies that perhaps to some extent they domakelaw. A great deal of controversy has centered on this question as to how far judges can legitimately makelaw although a great number such as lord Bentham have referred to it as a “childish fiction” thus...

...Dojudgesmakelaw or merely play a role in interpreting law? Discuss
Judgesdo both. Judges interpret the statue law and they make the common law. There are two types of law one would be the primary law, which is also known as the statue law and the secondary law, which is also known as the common law. For the primary law it is created by the legislature, which is the parliament as the parliament has the power to make the statue because the people elected them. So the judges interpret the primary law, which was created by the legislature. For the secondary law, which is the common law, the judgesmake this common law base on the cases and it is developed extremely slow and cautious and incremental bit by bit.as they would need to consider the principle and the loopholes in the law that they might be create or they could also make it so that it only applies in that particular case. Primary law always trumps secondary law meaning if there is a primary law the court should always use the primary law for the case. If there isn’t any primary...

...A judge-made law is a law rooted in a judiciary decision, not an act of legislation made by lawmakers or a regulation created by a government agency with the legal authority to do so. The collective body of judge-made laws in a nation is also known as case law. Many nations allow judges to set legal precedents when making high court decisions, adding to the body of law in a nation and providing new interpretation of existing laws.
Lower courts do not have the authority to makejudge-made law. Only judges operating in appellate and other high courts are able to set legal precedents by either changing the way the courts interpret a law, or offering a new interpretation that expands an existing law. Judges cannot invent laws out of whole cloth; they must be able to provide clear legal rationales for their decisions, with supporting information in the form of decisions in single cases.
After a judge-made law is created, other courts are bound to uphold the law, or to support challenges to it. As other courts abide by the law, they reinforce it and create a body of case law to support the original judge's interpretation of a legal situation....

...Judgesdomakelaw — it's their job
By Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk
Misleading and silly slogans about what judgesdo are dominating the debate about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
President Bush and Republican politicians constantly repeat, as a mantra, that Roberts is a desirable choice because he won't "legislate from the bench" and will merely "apply the law, not make it."
But every lawyer knows that judgesmakelaw — it's their job. In fact, law students learn in the first semester that almost all tort law (governing accidental injuries), contract law and property law are made by judges. Legislatures did not create these rules; judges did, and they continue to do so when they revise the rules over time.
Indeed, one of the most fundamental doctrines of American law — the authority of courts to declare laws unconstitutional — is entirely made by judges. Nowhere does the text of the Constitution mention the power of judicial review, and it may fairly be debated whether the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a power.
Supreme Court justices must interpret the broadly worded provisions of the Constitution and decide the meaning of vague terms that...

...Stare decisis
The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on stare decisis. That is the standing by of previous decisions. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case, that law must be applied in all future cases containing the same material facts.
For example in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson[1932] AC 562, (Case summary). The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of the product. This set a binding precedent which was followed in Grant v Austalian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 (Case summary). Also in Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 (Case summary) the House of Lords held that a crime of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed. This was followed in Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435 (Case summary).
In order for the doctrine of judicial precedent to work, it is necessary to be able to determine what a point of law is. In the course of delivering a judgment, the judge will set out their reasons for reaching a decision. The reasons which are necessary for them to reach their decision amount to the ratio decidendi of the case. The ratio decidendi forms the legal principle which is a binding precedent meaning it must be followed in future cases containing the same material facts. It is important to separate the ratio decidendi from the obiter dicta.
The obiter dicta is things stated in the course of a judgment which are not necessary for...